Southerland pro-environment, anti-big government

Published: Friday, October 12, 2012 at 08:00 AM.

Fish aren’t the only thing disappearing under catch shares; so are jobs. Catch shares fundamentally alter the economic landscape of our nation’s fisheries by pushing smaller vessels off the water.

Last year, for example, about five months after a catch shares program began in New England, 55 of the initial 500 boats in the fishery controlled 61 percent of the revenue, while 253 of those 500 boats were sitting idle at dock because they had not been granted enough access to fish under the regional catch shares program.

Unfortunately, controlling a resource requires control of the users. NOAA cannot effectively monitor the thousands of people who fish for recreation, sport, or financial gain. It can control a smaller number of large users, since monitoring compliance is much easier. That’s why “catch shares” is a favored approach to balancing the fishery.

Finding the truth in political campaigns is not easy, but we can’t give up on it. If we do, we allow the loudest and most repetitive voices to impact the most important right we have, to select those who represent us in government. For me, the choice for our Congressman is Steve Southerland.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the vitriol and misleading statements aimed at politicians, but recent attacks on Congressman Steve Southerland’s environmental record are outrageous.

Steve has always loved fishing and hunting and the beauty of the area we enjoy. He is also a strong Christian, who understands that each of us has a responsibility to be a steward of our natural resources. To accuse him of being a spoiler of the air and water is ridiculous. He, his family and his friends breathe the same air and enjoy the same water that the rest of us do.

The ploy in this case is the usual political misdirection, vilifying a good man by implying that he voted for dirty air and water. In reality, his vote was against expanding government authority and funding (further increasing the debt) with a bill supported by an environmental group.

We might consider installing a filtration system for the air we breathe inside our homes to have the cleanest possible air, but if the cost is prohibitive and the air is already clean, we’d probably let that one pass. Is that a vote against clean air?

Life consists of making decisions that include the cost, as well as the benefit. It’s even more critical when we’re using borrowed money to fund the choice. Congressman Southerland has been a stalwart opponent of further expansions of government and increasing our national debt. That’s a very positive trait and one that I fully support. If that stand results in a “public enemy” designation from a lobbying group, he should wear it proudly.

Steve’s opposition to expanding “catch shares” has also been a topic of attack. The program privatizes a natural resource (the fish in the sea) with the goal of better management of the fisheries. Like many government programs, this sounds good, but implementation results in a small number of large commercial fishing companies controlling the resource, since they have the funds to purchase the “shares.” Consider this program the “cap and trade” program for the sea. It’s not a new idea; it’s been in use in New Zealand, Norway and parts of the Northeastern United States for some time.

A post on the Congressional Blog on Energy and the Environment summarized the results: In New Zealand, the percentage of assessed fish populations failing to meet desired sustainability levels doubled under catch shares between 2006 and 2010. In Norway, cod stocks dropped to their lowest level ever in 2006 after years of catch shares management. And more often then not, catch share programs in the United States are being applied to fisheries where overfishing is not even occurring.

Fish aren’t the only thing disappearing under catch shares; so are jobs. Catch shares fundamentally alter the economic landscape of our nation’s fisheries by pushing smaller vessels off the water.

Last year, for example, about five months after a catch shares program began in New England, 55 of the initial 500 boats in the fishery controlled 61 percent of the revenue, while 253 of those 500 boats were sitting idle at dock because they had not been granted enough access to fish under the regional catch shares program.

Unfortunately, controlling a resource requires control of the users. NOAA cannot effectively monitor the thousands of people who fish for recreation, sport, or financial gain. It can control a smaller number of large users, since monitoring compliance is much easier. That’s why “catch shares” is a favored approach to balancing the fishery.

Finding the truth in political campaigns is not easy, but we can’t give up on it. If we do, we allow the loudest and most repetitive voices to impact the most important right we have, to select those who represent us in government. For me, the choice for our Congressman is Steve Southerland.